Topic: DSD users, notice anything different?

[carlbeck]

I have had some time with my MR-1000 now, I have done 6 shows with it in all different venues. I have noticed something interesting & I wonder if anyone else has. My recordings seem to be so dynamic now, more so than ever before. I have a McIntosh amp & I can see the power meters swing from 10 watts to 100 in an instant. The recordings seem to be so much more lively & lightening fast. Honestly I first started noticing it in the bass & the way my woofers reacted, they were much faster. As I go through the recordings I can hear a greater swing of dynamics between my DSD recordings dithered down to 24/48 & my original masters recorded in 24/48. Now, I have no clue if it is in fact DSD or the AudioGate software but something has changed for the better, my assumption is that it is of course DSD. Regardless, I am pleased, very pleased & now I realize I may need a little more power  & some larger speakers in my playback system!

[Nick's Picks]

yup...
all of the above.  just better recordings across the board since I've started w/the Korg.

[TNJazz]

agreed

[bgalizio]

Did I make a mistake going with the R-09? Buyer's remorse, probably. Maybe I'll upgrade to a MR-1 eventually.

[TNJazz]

Did I make a mistake going with the R-09? Buyer's remorse, probably. Maybe I'll upgrade to a MR-1 eventually.

This is not the right thread to be asking that question.   

[bgalizio]

Did I make a mistake going with the R-09? Buyer's remorse, probably. Maybe I'll upgrade to a MR-1 eventually.

This is not the right thread to be asking that question.  

I know that! And I have listened to the DSD > PCM recordings and they do smoke. I am cautious to the fact that you cannot (cheaply) edit/play the DSD material. But, the conversion still sounds fantastic.

[JackoRoses]

Did I make a mistake going with the R-09? Buyer's remorse, probably. Maybe I'll upgrade to a MR-1 eventually.

I don't think you made a mistake. I kind of felt the same way as you with purchasing my p2, yet I justify it by beliveing there isn't a transport that can handle DSD itself yet and the only way to play back is through the korg or downsample/dither to a source current technology can process.
ie: 24 bit

Is DSD in my future? more than likely but I would like to see some form of transport (at a reasonable price ) come out that I can play DSD DVD discs back through.

I understand even the conversion to pcm is still great I just want to see a DSD player available so we can all listen without the recorder to play back on.

[TNJazz]

I just want to see a DSD player available so we can all listen without the recorder to play back on.

Tascam DV-RA1000HD

[carlbeck]

Honestly the signal isn't any hotter. Its the recordings that have more impact & better impact at a lower DB. I actually tend to turn these recordings up higher than all my others due to a lower noise floor.

[macdaddy]

m0k3 -- do you use that tascam unit in the field anymore..?

[JackoRoses]

I just want to see a DSD player available so we can all listen without the recorder to play back on.

Tascam DV-RA1000HD

you didn't finish my quote, "at a reasonable price"
I don't think the tascam comes into the reasonable playing field at 1600$ and up
Some may find it a reasonable price yet I do not in "my world"
Might as well just use the korg for playback as well.

[TNJazz]

I just want to see a DSD player available so we can all listen without the recorder to play back on.

Tascam DV-RA1000HD

you didn't finish my quote, "at a reasonable price"
I don't think the tascam comes into the reasonable playing field at 1600$ and up
Some may find it a reasonable price yet I do not in "my world"
Might as well just use the korg for playback as well.

Sure I did.  $1600 is VERY reasonable for DSD.  Price out a Sonoma system.  If $1600 is not in your "reasonable" price range then it's probably not your time to step up to DSD.  The Korg is "cheap" DSD, by comparison (even the big one).

[JackoRoses]

I just want to see a DSD player available so we can all listen without the recorder to play back on.

Tascam DV-RA1000HD

you didn't finish my quote, "at a reasonable price"
I don't think the tascam comes into the reasonable playing field at 1600$ and up
Some may find it a reasonable price yet I do not in "my world"
Might as well just use the korg for playback as well.

Sure I did.  $1600 is VERY reasonable for DSD.  Price out a Sonoma system.  If $1600 is not in your "reasonable" price range then it's probably not your time to step up to DSD.  The Korg is "cheap" DSD, by comparison (even the big one).

um which is what I stated above. in reply to bgalizio.
 How many DSD recordings have you done and what unit are you using? If you don't have one what is holding you back?
Also even if I wanted to spend the money on the DSD unit which I could right now if I felt the need I am not doing it. Why because I am waiting on units to become available at a affordable price so I can share my recordings with others. Hell as it is right now try sharing DVD-A's
half the people don't even own a dvd player that can play them yet.
none of my friends do because they have older DVD players that don't support the format.
They are not going to buy a new DVD player just because I gave them a handful of DVD-A's
Try asking someone what 24 bit is besides the people here.
I ran a poll on another forum and an option I put was what is 24 bit?
Over half the people chose that option and I don't think it was because they were being cute.
Obviously it wasn't scientific either, i'm just adding that in.
24 bit is not for everyone yet and DSD is on the fringe still. I really hope it takes off in the next year though and when more options for DSD recording as well as standalone playback become available I will move that way.
I digress though this isn't what this thread is about.

[carlbeck]

What this thread is about & what I will stand by is that DSD does sound better. I think it is worth the cost but I also feel you should also have a playback system that is at least equal to your recording rig if not better.

[Stagger]

Maybe I still don't get this... If you are listening to DSD>24bit or 24bit to 24 bit, you are still listening to 24bit. Basic stuff. Recordings are as good as the weakest link in the chain. Now there may be an element of noise shaping done in the A>D process that is preferable but this is not necessisarily an element of the DSD "sound". 24bit will only ever sound as good as 24bit. That the file has been noise shaped before the final conversion is not unique to DSD. I remember someone doing a blind demo for a bunch of gathered tapers with a DAT>CD and a DAT>MP3>CD on a fairly muddy tape and I think everyone in the room said the disc with the MP3 in it was the streight DAT>CD. Now if you listen to actual DSD>ANA and say that that sounds superior, I completely understand (and agree), but I have a tough time categoricaly stating that a DSD>24PCM is more dynamic or "faster" than 24PCM. I think most of the recordings I have heard sound a bit brighter but other than that, I can't pin a overall picture of the DSD>24bit sound.

[carlbeck]

Stagger, you need to come back here & I will sit you down, when you leave you will have either drank the Kool Aid or not. Trust me, we are all hearing something even when dithered down to 24 bit. Between Nick, John & I we have some pretty decent systems for playback & we all notice it. I have no plans on selling my MR-1000 even though my FR-2 is fixed now, it sounds better & it is more than just a pre amp.

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics, whatever you want to call it but don't tell me it isn't closer to the real thing. I was in similar spots for all three years, running Blumlein. I am not saying that they are not tonally different but what I am hearing is more of a lifelike presence on the DSD recordings. I made some damn fine 24 bit recordings IMO but DSD makes me feel like if I close my eyes I am there again better than any other medium I have recorded with does. Who knows maybe it's the AD stage but it does sound better & it doesn't matter whether you are listening to the MR-1 or 1000.

I agree with you though you would think 24 bit is 24 bit but something is up, I can't explain it but there is something different, it is more real. I would hope in the last 10 years of doing this if I have learned anything it is to trust my ears. I am not so blind as to be seduced by a new box & loving it just b/c I own it. Regardless of whether we want to call it noise shaping or DSD it is only available with one of these Korg recorders at the moment, when other manuf's come out with DSD we shall get the true answer then but in the meantime I will call it a DSD trait. Regardless it isn't an argument of what is better but just a fact of what I hear in my recordings.

[Stagger]

You know I've put my time in too and I think my setup doesn't hide too much from me...though I will admit it is ripe in the mids due to all tubes and silk dome tweets. But the one thing I have come to understand both from my own expierences and dealing with costomers that everyone can be influenced. I've busted myself on cable comparisons for instance.

That aside, I'm only going on the recordings that have been put up. I know it isn't the fault of the DSD but that RCMH show is tough for me to listen to for any period of time. I think my ears need another 8-10 years of pounding before I can ignore that HF stuff  . Just like Stereophile publishing measurments, we should look at the facts... in both a DSD>24bit recording and streight 24bit recording you have the same dynamic range, same frequency response, same word length. What else can it be but a specific noise shapping (subtractive rather than additive) that gives a different sound? I'm not saying the Korg unit doesn't sound better. I'm just saying that the method for comming to this conclusion is a bit flawed.

[carlbeck]

You know I've put my time in too and I think my setup doesn't hide too much from me...though I will admit it is ripe in the mids due to all tubes and silk dome tweets. But the one thing I have come to understand both from my own expierences and dealing with costomers that everyone can be influenced. I've busted myself on cable comparisons for instance.

That aside, I'm only going on the recordings that have been put up. I know it isn't the fault of the DSD but that RCMH show is tough for me to listen to for any period of time. I think my ears need another 8-10 years of pounding before I can ignore that HF stuff  . Just like Stereophile publishing measurments, we should look at the facts... in both a DSD>24bit recording and streight 24bit recording you have the same dynamic range, same frequency response, same word length. What else can it be but a specific noise shapping (subtractive rather than additive) that gives a different sound? I'm not saying the Korg unit doesn't sound better. I'm just saying that the method for comming to this conclusion is a bit flawed.

You just won't let me off the hook until I get a PSP-2 will you?? Nope, I agree with you to a certain point so we will leave it as rightfully respecting each others opinions but knowing I am right 

[Stagger]

Nah..I won't let you off the hook till my ears stop bleedin'

 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

in both a DSD>24bit recording and streight 24bit recording you have the same dynamic range, same frequency response, same word length. What else can it be but a specific noise shapping (subtractive rather than additive) that gives a different sound?

And in many cases those 24 bit A/D units support DSD.  They just don't output DSD due to the particular implementation. They quantize the raw A/D output to 24 bit, much as the mr1000 or audiogate do. I believe that is the case for the V3's a/d?

[scb]

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics, whatever you want to call it but don't tell me it isn't closer to the real thing. I was in similar spots for all three years, running Blumlein.

do you have any comparisons that aren't from different shows?  like some rig split to a 24 bit recorder and to a dsd recorder?  i'd be interested in hearing a comparison that way. 

[carlbeck]

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics, whatever you want to call it but don't tell me it isn't closer to the real thing. I was in similar spots for all three years, running Blumlein.

do you have any comparisons that aren't from different shows?  like some rig split to a 24 bit recorder and to a dsd recorder?  i'd be interested in hearing a comparison that way. 

Nope we haven't since both Nick & I have DSD. I would try when I get my Fostex back from Doug but it is modded. We need someone local with a 24 bit bucket.

[TNJazz]

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics, whatever you want to call it but don't tell me it isn't closer to the real thing. I was in similar spots for all three years, running Blumlein.

do you have any comparisons that aren't from different shows?  like some rig split to a 24 bit recorder and to a dsd recorder?  i'd be interested in hearing a comparison that way. 

I will do one tomorrow night.

[Brian Skalinder]

I know it isn't the fault of the DSD but that RCMH show is tough for me to listen to for any period of time. I think my ears need another 8-10 years of pounding before I can ignore that HF stuff  .

< offtopic >

Even without having heard the RCMH recording, I know exactly what you mean.  Every C34 recording I've heard from PA environments - stage or audience - shares the same HF presence that just downright hurts my ears after a while.  I knew this going in when I bought Sanjay's C34 with re-built diaphragms, but thought I'd give it a whirl, anyway.  And the new diaphragms share the same HF characteristics.  I apply a mild LPF and it makes a BIG difference to my ears.  One of these days, I'll switch from the very coarse LPF to paragraphic EQ to make more precise adjustments.  I'm just learning paragraphic EQ, so it's going to take me a while to get it sorted, but I expect much better results than the LPF once I finally get there.  Kind of a PITA, frankly.  But...it's fun playing with the new-to-me mic and I'm enjoying toying around with the LPF and paragraphic EQ to get it sorted to my tastes.  If I didn't like the C34 so much - ease of setup / use, variable patterns, great overall detail and imaging - I'd unload this sucker.  If I can get some preset EQs sorted to make my life a bit easier, I'm gonna love this mic for a long time, I hope.

< /offtopic >

Is the RCMH C34 recording up anywhere for d/l?  I didn't catch the bt.etree torrent and would like to hear it.

Anyway...great reading feedback from a bunch of you using DSD, trying out the new technology / gear.  Thanks for all your posts!  I might get there some day, but it's gonna be a while.

[carlbeck]

Actually the real problem is that the Sound Devices only makes the HF worse in Blumlein (which is what I run 99% of the time) in Card or Sub Card it is much better but there is no denying in Blumlein the C34 just sounds bright. I am selling the SD because of this even though I really like the card & sub card recordings. I have been pleased with my previous rig (W Mod FR2) & the C34 running Blumlein but I am enjoying the DSD so now I need to find a pre-amp that will smooth out the highs. I am trying to find a PSP-2 or I will just buy a Portico 5012. I can't imagine having to EQ all my recordings but your right if you find a preset it would make life a lot easier.

Drop me a line & I can send a few discs your way. I am listening to my Raleigh 4/21 pull & loving it, one of the nicest recordings with the C34. I ran the Korg MR-1 & Apogee Mini MP pre.

[Stagger]

Why haven't I seen your Raleigh up for DL Carl? I've made pleanty of tapes that are anything but bright or hard to listen to with the c34 although I didn't run blumline all that much outside of local shows.

[carlbeck]

I forgot to seed it but is very good. I will have john seed it for me so keep an eye out.

[Stagger]

I only ask because Charles never put up his 24bit and my M/S sounds very odd. Lots of reverb off the concrete bowl in the mk8.

[dmccabe]

do you have any comparisons that aren't from different shows?  like some rig split to a 24 bit recorder and to a dsd recorder?  i'd be interested in hearing a comparison that way. 

Scott, I have 4 Allman Brothers/Ratdog shows done with KM184 > V3 > split so analog out goes to Korg DSD & digital out goes to Marantz PCM 24/96.
The analog out runs real hot when running normal levels for the V3 A/D, so the Korg input levels are between 1.5 and 2. We got some specs from Micheal Grace
for proper attentuators... the cables are still being made. Then we can run the Korg up in the 5-6 input range. Not sure if it will make a difference, the DSD files sound great now.


The DSD files then converted to 24/96 sound different than the Marantz 24/96. I prefer the "Korg Converted"
I can make you DVD so yuo can compare.

[carlbeck]

That is great too hear, plus T for taking the time to do a test of sorts with split signals. Honestly the results do not surprise me but it may provide some verification for those on the fence.

[rokpunk]

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics

This is not a valid compairison at all. You are assuming that the tonal differences are in the recorder, when the fact is, it's a different PA system, different weather conditions, different everything. How humid was this show last year as opposed to this year? The weather can effect your recording just as much, if not moreso, than your recorder can. I'm not saying that DSD recordings don't sound different or better than PCM recordings, but I am saying that you telling someone to listen to two recordings from two different sources to make the compairison is not valid (IMNSFHO).

[carlbeck]

Listen to my RCMH & compare it to last year or the year before, besides the brightness (thanks to the Mix Pre) listen to the mids/bass & tell me there isn't more presence or dynamics

This is not a valid compairison at all. You are assuming that the tonal differences are in the recorder, when the fact is, it's a different PA system, different weather conditions, different everything. How humid was this show last year as opposed to this year? The weather can effect your recording just as much, if not moreso, than your recorder can. I'm not saying that DSD recordings don't sound different or better than PCM recordings, but I am saying that you telling someone to listen to two recordings from two different sources to make the compairison is not valid (IMNSFHO).

It was indoors at a venue & spot we have both recorded at recording the same band, nor was it meant as a total scientific test. I was also speaking directly with the previous owner of the microphone, we are both obviously very comfortable with the recordings we have been making for the past 7 years prior to DSD.

[rokpunk]

It was indoors at a venue & spot we have both recorded at recording the same band, nor was it meant as a total scientific test. I was also speaking directly with the previous owner of the microphone, we are both obviously very comfortable with the recordings we have been making for the past 7 years prior to DSD.

All I'm saying is that you are ASSUMING the differences you are hearing are the DSD recorder, when in reality, you are listening to two completely different recordings. As far as this being an indoor show, there is still humidity at indoor shows.....and I'm sure you realize how much effect humidity has on recordings....especially on the highs and lows, like you are discribing sound different. I understand that this was not ment to be a scientific compairison, and I'm not saying that your results are not interesting....but I am saying that this compairison is not a valid way of compairing a DSD recording to PCM recording.

modify: upon thinking this over...who is to say that the sound company didn't get a new console or a new EQ from one year to the next, and *that* is the tonal differences you are hearing? I can tell you first hand that different consoles have much different sounds....my Midas boards sound much different than my Yamaha boards do. Again, I'm not saying that your compairison isn't interesting, I'm mearly saying that it's not a fair compairison.

[Stagger]

rokpunk,
Part of the issue here is that I owned the mic Carl has now for about 4-5 years so I am very farmiliar with its sound. I also have a schoeps copy of the show in question from another rig I am pretty farmiliar with so it helps. Granted, it would be eaier to have the output from the pre amp split, this still works better for me than it would most people.

[Nick's Picks]

so..why does DSD > PCM sound better than just PCM?

Look at it this way.
If you master something at 24/96, and then use the best software you have available to dither/shape/resample to 16/44, will it sound better than something you just mastered at 16/44 to begin with?
If you say yes, then you understand.
DSD at 1bit / 2.8 or 5.6mHz is a much higher resolution than 24/96.  And when you dumb it down to that PCM resolution (no matter what resolution), it still sounds better than if you mastered at the "target" resolution to begin with.

Same argument for R2R really.  that is higher fidelity, and most people would prefer to master w/the highest resolution possible...which yields better sounding results after the fact.

[Stagger]

so..why does DSD > PCM sound better than just PCM?

Look at it this way.
If you master something at 24/96, and then use the best software you have available to dither/shape/resample to 16/44, will it sound better than something you just mastered at 16/44 to begin with?
If you say yes, then you understand.

The answer is no actually... I only record in 24/96 because I can play it in both my home and my car. If I could not I would only record in 24/96 for archival purposes with the expectation of getting 24bit playback. If I was never planning on making the move to 24bit, I wouldn't bother recording on 24bit (see: Jeff Frank...did I just say that?).

After all of the dithering and resampling, I would say that you will, at the very best, get a file that sounds the same as a 16/44.1. At the worst, it will be worse.

[Nick's Picks]

I see.
aaahh well.
I was very content with 16bit recording and a good upsampling DAC.

Just one of those things Stagger.  You know what your recordings sound like, and you know when they sound better than par.
DSD took my par to more of a scratch game.

[Stagger]

Upsampling DACs and downsampling recordings aren't the same thing though. You use an upsampling DAC to improve the noisefloor and frequency response to aviod "bounce back" at the frequency and volume extreems in the D>A stage. You aren't adding or eliminating any usable music simply the environment that it is decoded in.

The very nature of downsampling music, however, is a subtractive one. You are fundimentally altering every aspect of the file. DSD>PCM is not quite the same as PCM>PCM because of the difference in word legnth vs. frequency and that is why I was trying to make it simple by calling it "noise shaping" (don't really feel like trying to find my copies of "The Physics of Sound" and the "Complete Guide to High End Audio" and formulate a more specific answer as its probably in storage after the move ). The content of downsampled music is different from the original. Put it this way. If you took down sampled music and put it in an upsampling DAC, would you get the original recording?

[Nick's Picks]

either way...
it all goes to show how foolish we are.
where is that old D5?

[Stagger]

either way...
it all goes to show how foolish we are.
where is that old D5?

Gimmie 2" reels any day!